Instigator / Pro
0
1500
rating
5
debates
60.0%
won
Topic
#4980
Can war ever be justified?
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After not so many votes...
It's a tie!
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- One day
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
0
1493
rating
24
debates
62.5%
won
Description
I (Kouen) will argue that war can be justified in multiple instances (at least two). The opponent will argue in favor of war never being justified.
Round 1
War can be justified in multiple instances. One of them is when a country has to defend itself. A recent example is Ukraine engaging in a war with Russia. Once Russia started invading Ukraine, Ukraine had a moral obligation to defend themselves and not let aggressors take their country. Their sovereignty, civilians' lives, and infrastructures were all at stake. This is always the case with a country getting invaded by another. So countries must go to war in order to defend themselves from an attacker.
Another case in which war is justified is when a population wants freedom. An example is people who lived in current day Haiti. They used to be slaves and were under a colonial ruling by the French. They revolted and obtained freedom. Should they have accepted to remain slaves and not engage in war? I don't think so. Another exemple is the British taxing the American colonies in order to pay for the losses in their wars against France. Americans didn't want to pay, and the conflict escalated. The war started by Americans was justified since the British blatantly tried to exploit them by trying to make them pay for their own losses. These were only two exemples amongst many others. When a group of people feels severe injustice from another group of people that controls them, it's justified for this oppressed group to revolt and cause a war.
Thanks for debate Pro.
Thanks to the audience.
This round's contents
In round 1, I am laying out my position. In round 2 I will examine pro's round 1 & address pro's round 2 comments. Round 3 I will summarize and address anything new from round 3.
Opening
War. What is it good for? Absolutely nothing. Say it again!
War is a series of violence or violent acts to achieve a goal. Violence itself can be neutral like demolition, bad like conquest, or good like when a doctor uses a scalpel.
war is never justified because:
1) There are negative effects from war, on all persons, that out weigh reasons for war.
Long term economic effects
Global health is effected
Environmental detriments
Social impacts
Psychological impacts
[Pdf available]
Each link provides an article giving insight to damages that war has on each of us. This damage extends beyond just death. Causing long term effects that can develop new wars, economic struggles or collapse, unnecessary debt, long term psychological issues, societal issues, and more.
All these things can be prevented with the attitude of no war can be justified.
2) there are no self defense wars.
War is brought on to us by someone who should not have started the war to begin with. That person/group has already started an unjust war. Our act of self defense is an act of preservation, not war. Our participation in said war is not our own doing. This includes acts of self defense & preservation years after wars or conquest, a continued attack on a people. A people that must survive if attacked in either circumstance.
3) Immoral to kill
Morality is a standard for what we ought to do and ought not to do. Regardless to however objective or subjective we view morality to be we can understand the most important aspect relative to war: killing.
Why we ought not to kill? This action prevents another's future and livelihood. If I am to kill a person, it is morally wrong because I am preventing that person's future.
What about self defense?
As stated above, some violence can be broken down to neutral, bad, or good. Self defense is neutral.
Can we use violence for good then?
In some cases. However, some like Self defense are neutral because it still carries detrimental effects similar to effects linked above and it still kills.
The scalpel used to remove a tumor is not used to kill.
Self defense may be acceptable in some cases but there is a fine line between moral and immoral. Best described in example:
Stopping an attack by killing as only means to survive is moral.
Stopping an attack and then killing is immoral.
However these aspects describe individual acts of violence, not war because of point 2 - no war occurs in self defense.
In conclusion.
There is no just war
No war can be justified.
Round 2
Thanks for accepting.
1) No choice
Of course there are a lot of downsides to war, however, a lot of times people just don’t have any other option. There are other scenarios on top of the ones I described earlier in which people are forced to engage in war.
When Iraq invaded Kuwait, 42 countries stepped in and made a coalition army, and expelled Iraqi military forces from Kuwait. The intervention of the American-led army was perfectly justified since Iraq had no right to invade Kuwait (https://crimeofaggression.info/role-of-the-icc/definition-of-the-crime-of-aggression/). So some wars that aren’t self-defense are justified.
The Union (in the American Civil War), didn’t want slavery to expand to the west, which would lead to more slave states. The Union had no other choice but to fight the confederacy which allowed and encouraged slavery. What was the Union supposed to do? Sit down and negotiate?
2) there are self-defense wars
While self-defense an act of preservation, it’s also an act of war. The Merriam-Webster defines war as «a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations» https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/war and defines state of war as «a state of actual armed hostilities regardless of a formal declaration of war.» https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/state%20of%20war As soon as a country accepts to fight back, they’re still engaging in a war and it is justified for them to do so.
3) Immoral to kill
While it’s immoral to kill, in most wars, the parties couldn’t solve their differences through moral and peaceful methods.
So yes, there are a lot of situations in which things can only be resolved through a war despite how negative the effects of war can be, so a lot of times it's justified.
Thanks for debate.
Thanks to the audience.
Q&A
Kouen. Please answer the following
We are talking about war in its entirety, correct? So not just some acts of war but all acts within a given war?
If there is a just war, is there an unjust war?
What makes a war unjust?
What is an act of war?
Does an act of war represent or justify the war itself?
If Iraq invades Kuwait only for capturing resources, and no one responds - no American lead coalition joins the fight - is the war justified?
1) now, Kouen present the usual excuse for war. There is no other option. Unfortunate that this is the same quote given so many times to look away from other options.
With so many bad things that happen during war. Why does one or two points outweigh the so many atrocities, deaths, etc. to make war in its entirety, justified?
With that let's consider what is presented to us. In response to point 1 (negative impacts outweigh the reasons to start a war), pro gives examples of self defense.
Gulf war: Kuwait is attacked first by Iraq. Kuwait and others respond to Iraq starting a war.
American civil war: confederate states declare independence from u.s.a. and then attack. The union is attacked first by the confederacy.
Ukrainian war: Ukraine is first attacked by Russia.
The aggressors are starting the war in an act to violate another country, they are not performing self defense. The war exists because the aggressor. How can such wars ever be justified if in reality:
Gulf war because Iraq wanted to conquer Kuwait.
Civil war started because confederacy wanted to conquer the union and spread slavery.
Ukraine is in a war because Russia wants to take its land.
Which is why...
2) there are no self defense wars.
War is brought on to us by someone who should not have started the war to begin with.
Remembe that in self defense to be self defense, it occurs in response to an act. If I go out to kill someone with claim that they were going to kill me, that is not self defense. Starting a war to prevent an undesired act is not self defense.
As soon as a country accepts to fight back, they’re still engaging in a war and it is justified for them to do so.
How does this make the war, that they did not start, justified? How is the other person or group justified in starting the war?
Even if Ukraine sits back and does nothing, they are still in a war with Russia because Russia is engaged. The only way to not have a war is to not start one.
3) Morality on killing
While it’s immoral to kill, in most wars, the parties couldn’t solve their differences through moral and peaceful methods.
Now each situation is a bit different than the next. World war 2 did not start the same way as world war 1. We have not seen a war that starts in exact same as another. However, can we really say that any given group could not solve their problems?
Can we be honest to ourselves in saying they tried every available option?
We can say no. Russia does not need land from Ukraine. They can exist without it. Iraq does not need Kuwait, they have existed separate for decades if not centuries. Third Reich never needed to exist to make Germany a successful amd respected country - it has done so now for decades without nazism.
Hindsight might be 20/20 here but the confederacy attacking the union the start the civil war was just plain stupid.
All these wars are pointless and unjust.
4 . Haiti.
Pro presented an example in round 1 where slaves fight for freedom. Their only choice.
I point out that their act was a continued struggle and response to an unjust war and unjust action against them.
Haiti was conquered - war brought upon them.
They are responding. Their response or desire to be free may be considered good but they are still a part of an unjust action and war not started by them. A conquest that should not have been.
Also. We still have to consider the act that is immoral. An immoral act is not justified by a beneficial outcome. Otherwise we may justify several atrocities where some found the outcome beneficial.
Round 3
“We are talking about war in its entirety, correct? So not just some acts of war but all acts within a given war?” You can say that groups do bad things during wars, ok, that’s true, however, the act itself of settling disputes through armed conflicts is correct, as we have no other way too. You tackled that point further down the message so I’ll get back to that.
“If there is a just war, is there an unjust war?” Of course there is unjust war, my point is not that 100% of wars are justified. The question of the topic is “Can war be justified?”, not, “is war always justified?”.
“What makes a war unjust?” 🤔 That’s a good question. It’s up to you to answer since you’re arguing that war is never justifiable. I’d say spontaneously that it’s unjust when it could realistically have been prevented through non-violent means(which rarely happens).
“What is an act of war?” I’ll define it right below.
"Does an act of war represent or justify the war itself?" In multiple instances yes, that’s what I’m arguing.
“If Iraq invades Kuwait only for capturing resources, and no one responds - no American lead coalition joins the fight - is the war justified?” It’s not a war if only one country attacks. A war is an armed fight between multiple states/countries/groups. So this question is out-of-the-topic. https://www.dictionary.com/browse/war#:~:text=a%20conflict%20carried%20on%20by%20force%20of%20arms%2C%20as%20between%20nations%20or%20between%20parties%20within%20a%20nation%3B%20warfare%2C%20as%20by%20land%2C%20sea%2C%20or%20air.
“With so many bad things that happen during war. Why does one or two points outweigh the so many atrocities, deaths, etc. to make war in its entirety, justified?”
I’ve already answered this in the last point. It’s because there is no other option. Sitting down and talking won’t resolve most world issues.
“The aggressors are starting the war in an act to violate another country, they are not performing self defense. The war exists because the aggressor.”
That’s simply not true. Let’s say a country X attacks a country Y and the country Y doesn’t defend itself. It’s an invasion, fine, but it’s not a war. We have to distinguish terms.
“War is brought on to us by someone who should not have started the war to begin with.”
While it’s brought on to them, the fact that it’s called a war is because they’re opposing themselves to the other party instead of letting them take their resources and territories. If a person A beats up a person B and the person B doesn’t defend themselves, we’re not going to call this a fight. While, if the person B fights back to defend themselves, it’s at this moment that it becomes a fight.
I said earlier “As soon as a country accepts to fight back, they’re still engaging in a war and it is justified for them to do so.” and con replied “How does this make the war, that they did not start, justified? How is the other person or group justified in starting the war?”
To settle a different. Ex: Iraq believing Kuwait belongs to them.
“Even if Ukraine sits back and does nothing, they are still in a war with Russia because Russia is engaged. The only way to not have a war is to not start one.”
This directly contradicts the definition of a war, as according to the definition of war, if Ukraine does nothing it’s not a war.
- Morality on killing
I had said that “While it’s immoral to kill, in most wars, the parties couldn’t solve their differences through moral and peaceful methods.” The con replied “Now each situation is a bit different than the next. World war 2 did not start the same way as world war 1. We have not seen a war that starts in exact same as another. However, can we really say that any given group could not solve their problems?”
Well if you have solutions that would have realistically prevented the wars I’ve given as examples you’re free to say them. (Spoiler: There are none.)
“Can we be honest to ourselves in saying they tried every available option?” We can be honest to ourselves in saying that we have centuries of historical data and this is sadly a way we found to settle conflicts, sitting down and negotiating doesn’t always work.
“Russia does not need land from Ukraine. They can exist without it. Iraq does not need Kuwait, they have existed separately for decades if not centuries. Third Reich never needed to exist to make Germany a successful and respected country - it has done so now for decades without nazism.”
True that they didn’t need these lands but we could’ve said this about life in general. It’s not because a group of people doesn’t 100% need something or they’ll all die that they shouldn’t settle their conflict or territorial claims or population claims. Now I can’t say ‘All ways are justified since the different parties claims something’, a lot aren’t, but I also can’t say ‘People can live the way they are so no war is justified’, as a lot are.
- Haiti.
“Haiti was conquered - war brought upon them.” Throughout this argument, you’re saying that Haiti was responding, true, but they started that war. No matter what happened before, we’re specifically discussing about if the justification for a war can be valid, and in this case, it is, even if you say there are elements that led to that war, that was still a war started by the revolutionaries. https://historyincharts.com/timeline-of-the-haitian-revolution/#:~:text=1789%2D1790%20%E2%80%93,slave%20revolt%20begins
“Also. We still have to consider the act that is immoral. An immoral act is not justified by a beneficial outcome. Otherwise, we may justify several atrocities where some found the outcome beneficial.” Their declaring war was simply a result of French atrocities. We can’t say that Haiti’s decision was immoral, they deserved their freedom and deserved to be treated like the humans they are. This war was perfectly justified.
Also, this was just an example, perhaps too specific, but my point was that when a group of people feels oppressed by another group of people, starting a war so they can have their own territory is justified. It doesn’t have to be as bad as slavery.
Ex. the Mexican War of Independence leading to Mexico’s independence from Spain. Mexicans as a whole weren’t slaves, however, they felt oppressed(and were oppressed), they felt that there was a social hierarchy(and there was a social hierarchy), so it was justified for them to start a war for their independence.
Thanks for interesting debate.
Thank you readers for taking time to check this out.
Starting with q&a then any parts for point 1 to 4 from previous rounds.
Q&a
The question "what is war," needs to be addressed first.
It’s not a war if only one country attacks. A war is an armed fight between multiple states/countries/groups.Let’s say a country X attacks a country Y and the country Y doesn’t defend itself. It’s an invasion, fine, but it’s not a war. We have to distinguish terms.
Correction. Its not a war if only one country attacks no other country.
noun
Definition provided by pro does not distinguish how any party should behave whilst being attacked.
The definition of war does not distinguish length of time other than "usually prolonged."
Usual is only an average.
Nor do we see any descriptor that limits war to violence that is reciprocal or met with resistance because war includes attacking when an enemy is unaware.
Ex: lets say group X invades group Y. Group Y is unable to provide adequate response to invading x. X kills thousands and conquers Y. Does not matter if Y is able to get a shot off or not, this invasion is still a war.
Of course there is unjust war.“What makes a war unjust?”That’s a good question. It’s up to you to answer since you’re arguing that war is never justifiable. I’d say spontaneously that it’s unjust when it could realistically have been prevented through non-violent means(which rarely happens).
I wish there was a more definitive response because this vague reasoning can apply to unjust wars. Leaving this debate to subjective opinion rather an objective conclusion. Where any war could be viewed as just and unjust at the same time. And both answers would be correct.
If we applied pro's logic of "no other option" to cambodia's year zero, then genocide can be argued as just.
"Does an act of war represent or justify the war itself?" In multiple instances yes, that’s what I’m arguing.
If we look at haiti example, the start of war is to be free from slavery. This pro considers as just reasoning. The start of war is just therefore the war is just.
Pro said american civil war was just - but the start of the civil war was to increase/secure slavery.
This conflict between why these wars are just should expose error in Pro's reasoning. I try to highlight this with point 2 (no such thing as self defense war).
The group starting the war is doing so for unjust reasons. Why are we saying those wars are just?
A group may be just in participating in a war but that does not mean the war itself is just.
Ex:
England invades and enslaves african countries? They had no other option because the locals told them to piss off. England is now justified in their attack and therefore the war is justified.
This may be an oversimplification but we need to see the errors in thinking that "no other option" is enough to justify war .
"How is the other person or group justified in starting the war?”To settle a different. Ex: Iraq believing Kuwait belongs to them.
Here is another part of the error.
Just because Iraq thinks x doesnt make it true. How does this then make their actions justified by an opinion?
We can not believe a war to be just if justification relies on subjective opinions.
Well if you have solutions that would have realistically prevented the wars I’ve given as examples you’re free to say them. (Spoiler: There are none.)
There are. We need to adjust our attitudes away from doing what ever we want for our own greedy wants and actively try to solve conflict based on equal results. For all examples given. None of this occurs or its entirely one sided. In which the one side who is greedy and does not want to find options is the one who attacks. Creating another unjust war.
1. Negatives of war outweigh positives.
Which means no war could be justified because people use the positives to justify the war. Links provided round 1 for support.
I asked pro what could outweigh negatives like ptsd, environmental damage or killing other humans.
Pro's response is "no other option."
Above in q&a I show the error in leaving justification to "no other option," because it can apply to wars that are started for unjust reasons as well.
Pro said there were unjust wars.
2. No self defense war.
War is based heavily on who starts it and why it is started.
I must emphasise again that a war is not just because a participant acts in self defense. If we do, then all wars are just because all wars have countries/groups acting in self defense as only one country/group is needed to start a war.
However, pro said there are unjust wars. There is contradictions in their reasoning.
3 & 4 morality.
Haiti.
“Throughout this argument, you’re saying that Haiti was responding, true,
I was saying there is no real distinction between haiti being conquered to haiti having a revolution. Although there may be time distancing the start of one vs the start of another event, They are the same war. I gave my reasonings in round 2. Highlighting a continued response from the time being conquered.
[Haiti] war was perfectly justified.
Slavery would have ended regardless to haiti revolution. That was a temporary and localized event.
We can all agree that ending slavery is good. However, our actions have consequences. Even ones with desired outcomes. Unfortunately the outcome does not justify the means. Otherwise, like much of pro's approach to justifying war, we will find ourselves justifying immoral and unjust wars as well.
If what we do to justify one war we like to justifying wars we do not like. Then that does not really justify any war.
I messed up. I deleted a part you are asking about. It starts in round 2. Talking about how certain groups did not need x. But it ends before it supposed to. My mistake.
Yes, I just threw this vote together to formalize my thoughts on the debate for you and hey-yo. I made a fatal error when interpreting Con's argument my first time around, where I effectively thought he just agreed with you.
I hope someone else votes so this isn't debate isn't regrettably left as a tie.
so no official vote ?
In light of the mistake I made in my previous vote, this vote will only be posted in the comments to clarify my position, as it feels scummy to not perform a proper reassessment.
One thing from my first vote that I stand by is that this debate needed a better description. The fact that so much of this debate boiled down to semantics is a product of there being no definition of a just war provided beforehand.
Pro's idea of a war is derived from Merriam-Webster. He claims that a war is reciprocal violence between two countries. In contrast, Con alleges that war comes from the aggressor, meaning that the justness of a war cannot be evaluated from the perspective of a nation acting in self-defence. My main problem with Con's definition is that it begs the question. The more and more I read the debate, the more and more I am convinced Con is equating starting a war with being the very state of being unjust. For example, in the case of Haiti, I understand what Con is saying, that the violence from the revolutionaries was a continuation of the violence sparked by the French. However, it gives off the impression that he is kicking the can back to the first act of aggression from the party he and Pro both agree were in the wrong. The fact that this same can kicking is absent in his other applications of his definition makes it seem as though Con is basing his concept of war around the idea that war is bad because war is always started by bad actors. I am more sympathetic to Con when he talks about the Ukraine War or the American Civil War, but when he combines the French taking initiative against the Haitians, a period of intervening peace, and then a Haitian revolt as a single conflict, it feels like he is assuming his own conclusion. In comparison, Pro's definition does not beg the question at all, as a matter of fact, it is open enough to lend itself to this debate. On top of this, Pro refers to an authoritative third party for his definition, while Con does not. The only part of Pro's definition that both I and Con take issue with is his belief that a war must have violence from both parties, even though his own definition does not state such, as Con highlights.
Basically, I cannot use Con's definition as a lens of analysis because it begs the question.
Given this, the debate reduces to one about whether war is ever needed to resolve a conflict (meaning more moral options are not feasible). Pro stresses that conflicts are often inflexible to other forms of mediation. For example, he discusses how the Confederacy in the American Civil War would not abandon their longing to spread slavery through simple dialogue, leaving war as the only act capable of resolving the dispute over slavery. He also alludes to the idea that war was needed to resolve the conflict with Iraq because there was an irreconcilable difference over who had the right to Kuwait, leaving war as the last resort. Con's rebuttals to this fundamentally fail to propose another practical alternative to war. I already explained this below, so I will keep this brief. Alleging that war is not inevitable because countries do not need to wage war with one another misses the heart of the issue. This is a simple fact about war, not a statement about a workable alternative to war. Talking about the moral character of humankind is just the same, it is not a workable alternative to war (at least not without more elaboration), it is a simple observation about the ubiquity of war being a result of man's faults.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Better Arguments ✔ ✗ ✗
Better Sources ✗ ✔ ✗
Better S and G ✗ ✔ ✗
Better Conduct ✗ ✔ ✗
Removed by request
Trent0405
10.12.2023 03:06AM
Reason:
This debate would have benefited greatly from a comprehensive debate description outlining what constitutes a just war.
Nevertheless, there was one key point which crystallized Pro's victory in this debate, that being the dispute over the First Gulf War. Con had an issue with the idea that a country engaged in self-defence was also engaged in war. He points out in his third round that to think otherwise opens the door to every war being justified, as every war would have a just and unjust participant. However, Pro highlights the First Gulf War as an example of a war where the aggressing party (the coalition forces) were also the justified party. The Iraqis had no authority to take Kuwait, as Pro points out, thereby justifying the coalition forces in starting a war. Con never directly challenges this example, but he does tangentially combat the idea. After being faced with the Gulf War example, along with many other similar cases Pro brought up, Con seems to focus more on the moral character of humankind. Con argues that all war is unjustified because the very act of starting a war reflects a failure to exercise other alternative solutions. My main issue with a point like this is that Con doesn't do any of the legwork needed to make a point like this stick. Con is making a pretty broad and expansive point here, and simply stating the point does not make it convincing, especially when pushback is provided, which it was. In the end, Con did not elaborate as to how war as a can never, in practical terms, be an inevitability. Therefore, at the end of the debate, I am left with the impression that the First Gulf War was justified, and by extension, that a just war is possible.
"If my words and grammar are not clear, thank you for letting me know. I have a hard time putting thought to words. In my mind everything makes sense and is worded in a way I understand. But to put those words in a way for others to understand is tricky. So sometimes I get surprised/shocked when others interpret the words differently."
It wasn't your fault. The grammar you used was correct, I just read a comma where there wasn't one. This is a big deal because if there were a comma there, you would have basically conceded that the Iraqis were the defensive party, which in conjunction with your assessment of Iraq as the unjust party would have basically meant you conceded the debate. In other words, I thought you were agreeing with Pro when you actually weren't.
"In regards to pro saying iraq was justified. I understand golf war to be started by Iraq. Others joinging an existing wat. Right?"
You certainly could view it that way. The issue is that the war had two phases: The invasion of Kuwait, and then the international coalition invading Iraq (desert storm). Pro was calling the coalition the aggressor because they initiated the second phase. I thought you were agreeing with Pro (due to the comma mistake I made) and then simply reiterating the fact that Iraq started the first phase later on.
"In last round pro says, " To settle a different. Ex: Iraq believing Kuwait belongs to them.""
Yes, I could be wrong, but I think it is obvious that Pro is arguing that the coalition was justified in starting the war because it settled a difference with Iraq (a difference which presumably could only be solved through war).
"Im not saying side with me. I am saying that if someone says there were no other possible actions to take for a war they should explain why that is true. If we just look at history then we only know what happened. But to say that is the only possible outcome is unfounded."
He didn't rebut every single possible other action a country could take, but he narrowed down on dialogue/diplomacy. He explicitly states that international affairs are often unresolvable through dialogue. He relates this to history by referencing the American Civil War. I agree there isn't much depth to this argument, but as I will explain below, I could not glean any countervailing analysis from your side of the debate.
" I also gave a response to what other options there were. "dont go to war. " even if russia launches nukes and the president has options. Its anti-nike. Just don't do it. That is an option."
I did not see this argument, admittedly. I skimmed the debate again to find it and I cannot do so, could you refer me to a round where this point was made? Nevertheless, it is sort of a perplexing statement. Saying "just don't go to war" is a solution to war is like saying "just don't steal" is a solution to theft. Unless you elaborated upon this point more, I fail to see how not going to war is a solution to war.
"I critized the attitude that leads to war in round 2. Pro responds to it, quotes it in round 3. Highlighting that the wars were started for reasons that each aggressor did not need. I e. Land resources."
I observed this argument in my initial reading. I did not consider it for the same reason I would not consider the argument above: It is very confusing. Saying a country doesn't need to go to war is not an alternative to war, it is a descriptive statement about the nature of war. Again, it is the equivalent to saying that a solution to robbery is acknowledging that thieves can function without theft. I am more than happy to take a concise statement from a debater and fill in the gaps that they left behind for the sake of brevity, but at some point I need more legwork to be done by the debater themselves.
"Yeah. To criticise their argument. Does that make it my arguenent?"
When you criticise your opponent's argument for presuming there are no alternatives to war, yes, I would expect then that you are arguing there are solutions to war. When you fail to present them and your opponent does allude to the irreconcilability of certain conflicts, I am obviously going to favour your opponent.
If my words and grammar are not clear, thank you for letting me know. I have a hard time putting thought to words. In my mind everything makes sense and is worded in a way I understand. But to put those words in a way for others to understand is tricky. So sometimes I get surprised/shocked when others interpret the words differently.
In regards to pro saying iraq was justified. I understand golf war to be started by Iraq. Others joinging an existing wat. Right?
In last round pro says, " To settle a different. Ex: Iraq believing Kuwait belongs to them."
.
I understood this to be in response to my question "how is iraq vs kuwait a just war, without considering coalition involvement." (Paraphrase).
"I fail to see why I should side with you."
Im not saying side with me. I am saying that if someone says there were no other possible actions to take for a war they should explain why that is true. If we just look at history then we only know what happened. But to say that is the only possible outcome is unfounded.
I also gave a response to what other options there were. "dont go to war. " even if russia launches nukes and the president has options. Its anti-nike. Just don't do it. That is an option.
I critized the attitude that leads to war in round 2. Pro responds to it, quotes it in round 3. Highlighting that the wars were started for reasons that each aggressor did not need. I e. Land resources.
But I am perchance too brief because I understand giving positive claim means you inherintly have b.o.p. I was making a negative claim which can (and often) rely on disbelief. Was there something inccorect in that thought? Perchance I actaually made a positive claim?
"You literally stated: "now, Kouen present the usual excuse for war. There is no other option. Unfortunate that this is the same quote given so many times to look away from other options."
Yeah. To criticise their argument. Does that make it my arguenent?
I think I'm tagging the right people. Could my vote please be removed, I think a more comprehensive assessment is justified given the exchange I had with hey-yo below.
"I was direct in countering pro's comments on iraq vs kuwait war! Countless times I called the war unjust because iraq is the reason for the war."
This was my bad. My confusion stems from one statement you made:
You stated: "Kuwait is attacked first by Iraq. Kuwait and others respond to Iraq starting a war."
I read this as: "Kuwait is attacked first by Iraq. Kuwait and others respond to Iraq, starting a war." (Note the comma).
This one comment confused me because I thought you conceded that the Gulf War was started by the coalition. In your succeeding points, I thought you were ignorantly conflating the initial Iraqi invasion of Kuwait with the Gulf War. This is fair grounds for a reassessment.
"Pro seems to say iraq was just at the end because in iraqs mind, they should have kuwait."
I do not believe Pro said this at all. I understand he referenced the idea that war can be used to resolve differences between states, but he never stated that Iraq was justified in taking Kuwait because they thought so. He simply acknowledged the fact that a war can be justified because it can be used to settle (presumably irreconcilable) differences (for example, a country believing they are entitled to a piece of territory).
"Pro said there are no other options but provides zero evidence other than war happened. B.o.p is on pro here. And I questioned the logic behind the comment. "
Kind of hard to say it is on somebody to prove there are NO OTHER OPTIONS. If someone argues that conflict can be irreconcilable through other forms of mediation, like dialogue and traditional forms of diplomacy, and you don't take it upon yourself to offer another form of conflict resolution that could work, I fail to see why I should side with you. Do you think Pro has to list every form of conflict resolution and prove why it could not be used? If you did present another form of conflict resolution that I didn't catch, I would like to see it.
"Post 1 is my arguement. Which doesnt have or mention anything about failure to exercise alternative solutions."
You literally stated: "now, Kouen present the usual excuse for war. There is no other option. Unfortunate that this is the same quote given so many times to look away from other options."
Con argues that all war is unjustified because the very act of starting a war reflects a failure to exercise other alternative solutions.
Responding to above. Post 1 is my arguement. Which doesnt have or mention anything about failure to exercise alternative solutions.
Pro said there are no other options but provides zero evidence other than war happened. B.o.p is on pro here. And I questioned the logic behind the comment.
This part should at least be a tie if my response was not adequate to question pro's point.
what are you talking about?!
I was direct in countering pro's comments on iraq vs kuwait war! Countless times I called the war unjust because iraq is the reason for the war.
I asked pro to proove or at leas explain why was the war just if iraq was unjust.
Pro seems to say iraq was just at the end because in iraqs mind, they should have kuwait. I attack this head on!
By saying it is a subjective opinion that can now justify all wars and even genocies in another paragraph.
How was this not direct?!